Kerala High Court
District Collector vs Shahul Hameed K.A on 14 March, 2019
Author: A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
THURSDAY,THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019/23RD PHALGUNA, 1940
WA.No. 1265 of 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 19191/2012 of HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 8.12.2014
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KOTTAYAM 686 002.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
THALAYOLAPARAMBU 686 141.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WPC:
SHAHUL HAMEED K.A,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL KHADER,
THEKKEPARAMBIL,
VADAKKEKARA PO,
THALAYOLAPARAMBU,
KOTTAYAM 686 605.
BY ADV. MOHAMMED AL RAFI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.1265/2015
2
JUDGMENT
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J The District Collector, Kottayam and the Sub Inspector of Police Thalayolaparambu are the appellants in this Writ Appeal, preferred against the judgment dated 8.12.2014 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19191 of 2012. The facts in the Writ Petition would indicate that the writ petitioner's vehicle bearing No. KL-36-2624 was seized alleging transportation of river sand without permit. The proceedings initiated through the seizure of the vehicle culminated in Ext.P3 proceedings of the District Collector directing confiscation of the vehicle. The vehicle was subsequently released to the petitioner pursuant to an interim order of the writ court and on the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.1.5 Lakhs as also offering security for the balance. It was the case of the petitioner that he had a valid pass for transporting the river sand, and the pass itself was produced as Ext.P2 before the learned Single Judge. Ext.P2 pass indicated that it was valid up to 11.30 am on the date of seizure, but at the time of seizure of the vehicle by the police authority at 11.50 a.m., the validity of the pass had already expired. It is also significant to note from Ext.P3 proceedings that as a matter of fact, the pass was not carried by the driver at the time of the vehicle being apprehended by the police authorities, although the pass was produced before the police authorities immediately thereafter.
2. The learned Single Judge relying on the finding that the pass had a validity period up to 11.30 a.m. and the distance to be covered was less than 10 Km., found that the mere fact that the vehicle itself was seized about 20 minutes after the expiry of the period of validity of the pass was not such a grave lapse as to visit the petitioner with the punishment of confiscation of the vehicle. The learned Judge, accordingly, set aside Ext.P3 order and issued a direction to the appellants herein to W.A.1265/2015 3 release the amount deposited by the writ petitioner, as also the security furnished by him, pursuant to the directions given in the interim order passed by the learned Judge.
3. Before us, it is the stand of the learned Government Pleader Sri. Surin George Ipe, on behalf of the appellants, that a confiscation of the vehicle was warranted inasmuch as there was a possibility that the pass concerned was used on multiple occasions for transportation of river sand. While this may be a genuine apprehension on the part of the appellant, we are afraid, we cannot justify the order of confiscation based on mere conjectures and surmises by the appellants. The action being penal in nature, it is incumbent upon the appellants to show that there are valid reasons for visiting the writ petitioner with penal consequences. In the instant case, since the breach was only of a technical nature and the issuance of the pass as also the corrections made thereon were certified by the Secretary of the Panchayat, who issued the pass, we find no reason to take a different view than what was taken by the learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition. We, therefore, dismiss the Writ Appeal as devoid of merit. The payments and security recovered from the writ petitioner during the pendency of the Writ petition shall be returned to the Writ Petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
Hrishikesh Roy, Chief Justice Sd/-
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Judge sou.